Home
| Blogs
Film
Food & Drink
General
Politics
Shopping
Travel
Write a Blog ...
| Events
Arts & Entertainment
Business
Community
Educational
Food & Drink
General
Holiday
Sports and Recreation
Post an Event ...
| Gallery
Food & Drink
General
Travel
Create an Album ...
| Search
Users
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Comments
| Community Links
The City of Manteca - Official Site
County of San Joaquin - Official Site
State of California - Official Site
California State Parks
The City of Ripon - Official Site
The City of Lathrop - Official Site
The City of Escalon - Official Site
DMV Office Locator
| Suggestions
| Register
| Login
| Help
;)
They have no record of balancing the national budget. As a matter of fact, during the first part of the last decade when we had a Republican/Conservative led House and Senate, as well as Republican/Conservative President, they took a balanced budget with surpluses that the prior administration had left, and turned it into record deficits and record debt. They started two wars without finding the resources to pay for them. Not what I would call fiscally responsible.
Then there is their claim that they are for personal liberties, yet, Republican/Conservatives across the nation in state houses and in the Federal Government are looking to eliminate or reduce minority rights. Their attack on women's rights, immigrant rights, the elderly and the young, as well as the poor and the needy is well documented and continues at this minute. It just looks like the Bill of Rights keeps getting in the way of their movement.
The defense being utilized to limit women's rights are an interesting one, "religious freedoms." The men in the Republican/Conservative movement are claiming that providing women with contraception is a violation of their religious freedoms. Rep. Darrel Issa (R) went as far as claiming that this is a Constitutional violation of religious rights. That is a bold statement to make considering that the Constitution states the following:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to be a bold statement by Mr Issa, as it appears he has read far more into the 6 words of the 45 words presented in this amendment. I don't see where it claims that religion supersedes women's, or any person's rights. It is one of 6 rights that are expressed in this amendment. As we our told that our freedom of speech has limitations, and we see members of the press arrested while covering peaceful protests, as well as peaceful protesters being hosed down with pepper spray by police for assembling peacefully. The right to petition the Government for redress of grievances has been relegated to lobbyists with the most cash. So how is it that Mr Issa is blind to the infringements of all of the rights provided in the first amendment except for the one that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Its because he is a member of "God's Own Party."
The Republican/Conservative myth makers like to promote former President Reagan as a great example of a Conservative, claiming that he cut taxes, and the economy saw one of the greatest growths in history. Of course we know this isn't true, and in reality, congress did cut the taxes that Reagan wanted and the economy went into immediate recession. Only after the largest tax increase in American history did the economy grow. As the current Republican/Conservatives idolize Mr Reagan, who did the former Democrat and Union leader see as his Conservative Idol? Senator Barry Goldwater, who is also known as the "godfather of Conservatism."
I gained an admiration for Mr Goldwater back in the 1990s as my political awareness started to mature. I admire people who say what they mean, and bring wisdom, reason and logic to their positions. Mr Goldwater was a leader, and wasn't afraid to say it as it is. There was a time that I was listening to him speak about his great friend, John Kennedy. I know this sounds strange, but prior to the current "Baby Boomer" version of Conservatism, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle would be friends. What Mr Goldwater was speaking about was how he and his good friend were looking forward to both running for President against each other in 1964. He stated that both were excited about the opportunity to go into the debates where each would present their ideology, and let the Americans vote on what they preferred. To me this always stood out as mentally stimulating, no dirty tricks, not twisting of the truth, just honest open debate.
Mr Goldwater was not a game player, he had a vision and worked towards it. Early in his political career he supported tax breaks for private school tuition and a school prayer amendment, but the rise of the intolerant Religious Right caused him to rethink his views.
In 1981, then President Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Conner to the Supreme Court. At the time there were some religious leaders who felt that she would be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority was quoted in the press as saying, "Every good Christian should be concerned." Mr Goldwater's response to Mr Falwell's statement, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
Also in 1981, Senator Goldwater voiced this opinion:
"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
Congressional Record, September 16, 1981
In 1994 he told The Los Angeles Times, "A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right." Today's "Baby Boomer" conservatives would call Mr Goldwater a "RINO" for a statement like that.
Mr Goldwater was no fool, he rightly had concerns that the Religious Right would have long term impact on his beloved party, and in 1994 he told U.S. & World Report, "If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in." That same year in an interview with The Post he observed "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." Wisdom sometimes looks prophetic, especially when you see where his party is now.
As we see the current "Baby Boomer" Conservatives claiming that they are presenting New Conservatism, the same was happening back in the early 1980s. On September 15, 1981 in a speech to the Senate Mr Goldwater stated, "Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength." He went on to say, "By maintaining the separation of church and state," he explained, "the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
Much like President Eisenhower warned us of the industrial military machine in his farewell speech, Senator Goldwater concluded his speech by warning the American people with the following, "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," he said, "unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now." "To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."
Contrast Mr Goldwater's statements with what former Republican Senator Santorum stated today in Moline, Illinois - living outside of God’s “moral bounds” will lead to anarchy and a larger government. “Marriage and the family are at the core of our foundation as society,” the former Pennsylvania senator warned. “In order to have limited government, you had to have people living good and decent and moral lives”
For the record, Mr Goldwater was an episcopalian, and not an atheist, and he was a Conservative, and not a RINO.
So as the Republican/Conservative movement moves further away from the ideals of the "godfather of Conservatism," they move closer and closer to becoming "God's Own Party." The very thing he spoke against.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/03/19/447471/santorum-moral-bounds/
Latest Activity: Mar 22, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Barry Goldwater always said it how it was, which was always fun to watch. I love it when he did an interview not too long ago and told the story of how his dad(or was it grandpa) shot a banker for purposefully bouncing checks and at the end says "he went on to greater things, he killed a man in Oklahoma City". Lol!
Great blog Sovereign!!
Goldwater also strongly opposed the federal government interfering in state affairs.
And as your blog reminded all of us Mr Conservative( a name all knew him by) felt equally as strong about religion and government mixing.
Some more of Goldwater's words depicting his grave concerns regarding religion in politics.
Barry Goldwater, 1994
"Mark my word,if and when these preachers get control of the (Republican) Party,and they're sure trying to do so,its going to be a terrible damn problem.Frankly,these people frighten me.Politics and governing demand compromise.But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God,so they can't and won't compromise. I know,I've tried to deal with them."
~Republican Barry Goldwater
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/...
If you look at what is taking place with the Republican nominees it seems as though we have more of a race to see who will be Pastor Of the United States then President of the United States.
The appearance being given seems more about trying to get votes because of what religion you are then about what kind of competent leader you would make for the Country.
Goldwater was 100% right,never more evident then what we are seeing now.
Sincerely,rozemist
"At a Baton Rouge revival yesterday, the Republican presidential candidate was introduced and blessed by the fire-breathing pastor Dennis Terry. To a cheering crowd, Terry shouted that ours is a “Christian nation,” that “we don't worship Buddha, we don't worship Mohammad, we don't worship Allah,” and that anyone who doesn’t like “the way we do things” should “get out.”
"Let us be clear on exactly what Terry said. His harangue was filled with the usual references to abortion and homosexuality. But he went further when he said that we–“Americans,” presumably–are Christians who worship “one God, and his name is Jesus Christ.” Anyone who doesn’t like that should “get out.” That explicitly includes Buddhists and Muslims, but also Jews, Hindus, atheists, and anyone who is not part of Terry’s “we.” And it includes “liberals,” who also don’t like “the way we do things.” All of these groups, Terry says, should “get out.”"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be in*fluenced by them for good or ill.
Buddha
When one has the feeling of dislike for evil, when one feels tranquil, one finds pleasure in listening to good teachings; when one has these feelings and appreciates them, one is free of fear.
Buddha
Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others.
Buddha
For Politics to work it has to be about compromising ,it must require negotiating and religion is about "Not Compromising" People are not suppose to compromise their religious convictions (spiritual convictions) ,therefore Politics and Religion are an impossible partnering from the very start.
History has taught us that the two can never work together.
There should be absolutely no instance where Politics should be in*fluenced by Religion.
We are hearing Preachers in the pulpit discussing Politics to their congregations So Wrong!
Do people go to church to hear the preachings of Politics and be told who they should vote for ,or do they go to hear about Religion.
These Religious leaders are exploiting their power over their congregations ,and have removed themselves so far from where they should be that it can hardly be called Religion.
I hardly think that God is telling all of these Religious Leaders who he wants voted in as President.
Thomas Jefferson
History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Sincerely,rozemist
It sounds like religious faithfull are expected to live their Faith in Places of Worship ONLY.
The daily lives should be what the Liberal establishment want, and Faith be confined to buildings.
IF that were ever to happen people of FAITH would be quickly called hypocrits and denounced for their lack of commitment by those very same liberals..
those are Just some the FActs
The biggest TRUTH is that JUST because you do not believe does not make it NOT the truth.
Jesus was about action
care for the poor
care for the sick
care for the elderly
care for your fellow man
religion is about conformity.
either you believe like we do or get out of our country.
Native,
I remember a saying that comes from the guy who christians built your religion on, you may have heard of him, he goes by his Greek name, Jesus, who said, "do onto others as you would have them do on to you."
So if you get a little unnerved because you christians are being treated as your religion treats others such as Buddhists and Muslims, but also Jews, Hindus, atheists, and anyone who is not part of the “we” that pastor Dennis Terry pointed out at Santorum's political rally, at least you will know we are following the teachings if Jesus.
Let me remind you again that the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thats all, that it, any more than that is not in the Constitution. Feel fortunate that you have that, and follow another saying of Jesus, "Live and let Live."
With so much wisdom available to you in the Christian bible, you would think christians would be more knowledgable.
On a sadder note, Peyton Manning was picked up by the Denver Broncos thereby losing their biggest fan....Jesus
I will be quick to say I have no clue where in the Bible Rev. Terry ghot his idea. I have never read anything like that in thge BIble. I have read in the Bible that MANY will not be believers and I read where Christians are not to live one life in the "Church" and another the rest of the week.
For anyone be they a Pastor or any other "speaker" of our Faith, to suggest that if you don't believe like we do, you should leave the country, is wrong.
I would say it to his face and I would warn him of treading where he shouldn't.
REAL Christians want to WIN converts not FORCE them into the FAITH for the simple reason we do not want just "members", but actually believers who live what they believe everyday and everywhere they go. Such believers would have a true commitment to their Faith and hold no part (ie:politics) back from being as we Believe God wants us to be.
I believe you would find that concept in the Bible far quicker than Terry's
idea.
from thye words of Jesus
Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me Lord Lord will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven"
"Narrow is the Way and few there are that find it" Matthew 7:13- 14
Thats in the Bible
Much like it is shown on this blog. I would never expect some to see the truth or be open to it, however I would welcome any one them to our Faith .
Larry
that was hilarious,forwarded to everyone I know who would get a laugh out of it.
Sincerely,rozemist
Jesus and double standards.
by K.W. Leslie on Monday, June 13, 2011
Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.
—Jesus, Matthew 7.1-2 NLT
This teaching is regularly taken out of context by Christians who want to appear tolerant, libertarian, and open-minded. They only quote it as far as verse 1, “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged,” and conveniently skip verse 2. They judge no one. Whatever you do is none of their business. Live and let live.
But, regardless of how the NLT puts it, that’s not the entire sentence. The KJV leaves in all the repetition that Jesus says in the original: “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
The assumption is that you will judge, at some point in your life. As you should. As we all do. Everyone judges. The word “judge” means to decide between one thing or another. (Same definition as the word it translates, kríno.) You do this daily. You decide which shirt to wear, which breakfast cereal to eat, which coffee to drink, which movies to watch, whether to read More Christ on a regular basis… Life is choices, and every choice involves judging which of our options is best.
When it comes to people, again, we judge them. We judge whether their behaviors meet with our approval, and make them fit company. Sometimes the behavior they’ve chosen—say, they’re off to see a movie that you have no interest in watching—doesn’t meet with your approval, so you decide you won’t hang out with them today. Sometimes it does meet with your approval; they’re going to your favorite restaurant, and you want in. …What, you thought I was gonna bring up sins? Not every judgment has to do with sin. Most of our judgments—unless you’re a particularly depraved person—don’t.
Just more answers to Sov's misconceptions of the Christian Faith.
A live-and-convert philosophy of life
"Luke 5:17, 24, 27-39; 6:11
Week 4 (January)
"Well, all religions are pretty much alike anyway, aren't they? They're all striving for the same thing, so what does it really matter?"
I had been standing in the sanctuary foyer making small talk with a woman. Then, these words startled me. They startled me even more as I realized she was the church office secretary.
There, in the foyer, we continued to talk. As the conversation progressed, it slowly became clear that this church secretary wasn't a born-again Christian. Nor did she understand what it meant to be one.
There she was, however, working as a receptionist and secretary for a Church of the Nazarene. She had no idea there was a difference between religious forms and a transformed, authentic life in Christ. Yet, she was working eight hours a day for a church which names the reaching of the unsaved as one of its top priorities.
What had happened? Why had she never been confronted with a clear gospel message? Why had a local church, intensely interested in "winning the lost," not made a clear call to repentance those on its own payroll?
Has the "live-peaceably-with-all" of our Christian ethic become so distorted by the tolerant spirit of the age that it's considered out of place for a church to witness to its own employees? Has Satan successfully deceived us into accepting a live-and-let-live philosophy under the guise of "living peaceably with all"?
I can't believe that Christ would be satisfied with such a live-and-let-live philosophy. His life was one of aggressive searching for an confrontation with sinful people. Wherever He met people, without regard to who or what they were, He talked to them on their level about the necessity for radical change in their lives."
To REPEAT from above.
"I can't believe that Christ would be satisfied with such a live-and-let-live philosophy. His life was one of aggressive searching for an confrontation with sinful people"
canative I don't think you understand the separation of Church and State and what that means. You can follow whatever religion that you want and it doesn't really matter what others think because it's legal to. But you can't force your religion onto everybody in this country. There are those of us that don't follow your religious sect and don't care to follow your morals. So why must you force your religion onto those of us that aren't believers? Maybe your religious text makes pornography a horrible thing, but others don't want it outlawed just because you believe that. If you don't like pornography, just don't watch it. If you don't want women to have birth control pills that's fine, but don't try to make it impossible for women that do want birth control pills.
Some of us don't want to practice your religion and the morals dictated by that religion, so don't force us to. Really, I thought it was the right-wing that was all about liberty and the left-wing that was against it! Apparently not.
The thing to remember is that no one, no matter how strongly convicted they feel in their own faith should try and force anyone to believe anything they don’t want to believe.
To try and force anyone's religion onto another is not a "Christian’s job".
People will find their way to their own beliefs,whatever that may be,even if it is a non-belief it will be of their own choice.
In society today we are seeing that one belief should cancel out all others,this is not right.Who are we to judge others and what they believe in.
This is where one must let people live the way that they will,(live and let live) yes whether you believe that Christ wouldn't agree is really irrelevant.
Your statement "Has Satan successfully deceived us into accepting a live-and-let-live philosophy under the guise of "living peaceably with all"?"
This is the very kind of talk that People who are of a different belief will take offense to,and rightly so.It's frightening,and it tries to frighten the listeners of it.
I don't understand what Satan has to do with live and let live philosophy .
Faith or Non Faith is so personal ,it can only be a choice made from one person for themselves alone.
Scare tactics have no place in Religion or at least it shouldn't ,maybe it worked once upon a time,but now it's backfiring on the very people who use it.
Sincerely,rozemist
Scare tactics and Religion have gone hand-in-hand since the beginnings of the first Religion ever invented.
It is still the mainstay of it's core. The whole Rapture thing is scare tactic number one right now.
I've had people come to the door and give me that storyline. I usually invite them in, start asking simple questions, like the logic behind Adam and Eve, the so called Great Flood, the tower of Babel, etc...
They can never answer those questions without quoting the Bible, which they seem to think will prove something. Imagine, using Bible quotes to prove something in the Bible is so, why? Because it's in the Bible. They usually leave quickly, probably thinking they are about to burst into flames.
One time some of those people came around, it was Halloween and I had several Demons around the front entry. I told them that those weren't Halloween decorations, but were our Gods that we worshiped and we were just about to have a special ritual and they were welcome to join us. I brought out a Devils head filled with little devil candy. They couldn't leave fast enough...never seen that crew again.
to repeat from above
from thye words of Jesus
Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me Lord Lord will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven"
"Narrow is the Way and few there are that find it" Matthew 7:13- 14
Thats in the Bible
Much like it is shown on this blog. I would never expect some to see the truth or be open to it, however I would welcome any one them to our Faith .
It is appointed unto man once to die and after that the Judgement, Believe or don't its up to you.
I don't see me trying to force anyone into the Kingdom and I think I have made that clear... What needs to be CLEAR is just because you don't believe does not mean you are clear from the consequences of your unbelief but I am clear of my duty for telling you..
THE END.
SO don't bring up anymore lies to justify you disbelief...
"What needs to be CLEAR is just because you don't believe does not mean you are clear from the consequences of your unbelief but I am clear of my duty for telling you.."
See, scare tactics are alive and well in Native's scary mind.
canative you just don't get it. Maybe you want to try and get us to be Christian, you want us to see "the truth", there's nothing really wrong with that. But there's a difference between doing that and forcing us to follow your religion's moral codes THROUGH the law. That's a huge difference.
Larry here is one for you
An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest:
"If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
"No," said the priest, "not if you did not know."
"Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?"
-- Annie Dillard,
"Religion is immature wish-fulfillment, a denial of our mortality, an abrogation of our human responsibilities, a sentimental lullaby for those unwilling to face harsh realities we live we die and turn to dust." Unknown
If you think religion and the moral values have no place in politics, research in depth the cause of the destruction of civilization. What I found and was given cudos for in college, was a lack of moral values came before EVERY fall. Basic premise, family and moral values happen to be the CORE of civilization(you know the things that make a society different from savages). So in order to preserve this nation it would seem important to fight for those very values just to save this "civilization" from destruction.
To equate religion with morality is a mistake. Some of the most immoral acts in history were done for religion.
Witch Trials
The cultural genocide if native americans
Terrorism
Just because you believe it does not make it true.
Larry
The research of the fall of the various Civilizations is not done from the BIBLE.
To equqate religion with mankind's acts is an equal mistake.... Relious actions are sometimes what MAN makes them to be. Christian Faith is what God ascribes as found in the Bible...
Those moral values stand the test of time.
For over 2000 years Opponeents have tried to destroy the Christain Faith through political power, lies and judicial action and the Faith STILL STANDS.
No one has ever foound the body of Jesus in 2000 years. Martyrs have died for refusung to denouncve their faith in Jesus. Still remaining are the final days as described in the Book of Revelation. According to current events the events are occuring that signal those days.
Please canative, show me this research where the fall of civilization was because of their immorality(didn't Rome fall after accepting Jesus Christ?) and that means therefore that you have to force your morals that others don't follow onto the rest of us through laws. Pornography and birth control pills aren't going to destroy civilization, there are much bigger things in society which will be the fall of civilization(here's a hint for you, it begins with c and ends with ism). I mean did you ever study the economic basis of these civilizations that fell? The Greek? The Roman? They were damned to fall whether they were the most moral beings on Earth or not(Remember that Jesus never said slavery was wrong).
CLUE?
BEGINS WITH "C" AND ENDS WITH "ISM" You mean Communism????
Ever hear of the orgeys of Greece and Rome? Drunkeness and drugs of the day?
Infidelity of mazrriage due to such activities?
Each Empire ignored the common moral values failing to learn from the past... Much as today..
ever notce how they killed slaves for entertainment in the collisium?
The economics had no common effect on the fall of those Empires except to make them rich and lazy, DUH, moral values???
lol, that was a good one canative.
Yes I've heard of the orgies of Greece and Rome(I even hear they sometimes had homosexual activity *gasp*!)
Their whole entire civilizations fell because the economic system was built on slavery which had horrible ramifications, not because they had gay sex in orgies. Really I can't understand how you'd think having orgies led to the fall of civilization. Again, much bigger things lead to the fall of civilization and will lead to the fall of civilization in the future if we don't adapt.
You mean as in Russia, China, Cuba and Korea... Oh thats right we have no working example of the "proper" form of Communism except from your mind.
ONE question mr genius,
What is the ROOT of the formation of civilization? THE FAMILY, study your college classes, unless the liberal take over re wrote that part too...lol
from
fordham.edu
NOTE
no word of how capitalism destroyed the society OR how communism improved society
VII. The Western Middle Ages
A. From around 600 to 1000 AD conditions were fairly bleak.
Around 800 Charlemagne.
Most people lived on the land. Subsistence farming.
No towns larger than say 10,000 - at the most.
B. c.1050 Latin Christendom comes to life.
Politically States begin to pull themselves together,
England, France, Germany (for a time)
- Concept of Kingship and what a king should be/do develops.
Crusades - Westerners attack both Byzantium and Islam in order to conquer Jerusalem. They succeed for a time.
-Architecture develops.
Intellectual Life -
great writers like St. Thomas Aquinas (13th. C.)
Christianity becomes more like it is today.
Devotion to Mary. Mass. Development of all the religious orders.
Art and Music - We can now trace direct lines from then to now.
Economically - From around 1050 a Commercial revolution.
In the earlier period money had largely disappeared. Now it becomes important again and trade starts up in local areas and between far distant areas. Westerners even get as far as China.
In short the West begins to have notion of itself. The notion is called Christendom, but develops into the idea of Europe.
In the Middle Ages we have the origin of a specifically Western civilization, based not on the Mediterranean, but the Western lands of the entire Continent.
VIII. The Renaissance
Period from late 14th, early 15th Century (explain 1300s and 1400s)
- a new emphasis, spurred by examination of Classical past but also by internal European developments created an artistic and intellectual ferment first in Italy and then in the rest of Europe.
Renaissance thought stressed Classicism, Individualism, Humanism - belief in no limits to human accomplishment (Pico de Mirandola). This, rather than more medieval ideas, was the precursor to modern ways of thinking.
Humanism -
A. Erasmus of Rotterdam - Version of Bible in Greek attacked superstition
B. Thomas More - Humanism in England
C. Calvin - first serious writing in French
D. Printing Invented - was to lead to great changes as information could be spread much more easily - Johannes Gutenberg d. 1468
Native, you have to be kidding, right? Moral decline preceded the end of every major civilization? You named two, and you never showed that there was any morality in these cultures to begin with. Just stop now, I will take you to task on this one.
The family is the root formation of civilization as communists have known for years. Engels wrote a book on it, it's called The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
Very interesting read that shows the evolution of the family and society with to the formulation of the ancient form of the state.
And I'm really confused as to why you're quoting me something from fordham to prove a point about capitalism and communism when neither of them were even a thing in those periods that you quoted.
None of what you're saying really justifies your belief that you should be able to force your moral beliefs on people that don't believe in them. What if Muslims became a majority in this country and started pushing for laws that most Christians did not believe? Like women should cover themselves head to toe and not go outside without their husbands or else it could lead to the moral decay of our society therefore destroying our civilization? My bets are you would be against it. So don't you understand how all the crap Christians are trying to pull are antithetical to freedom and liberty? If that's how you feel you have every right to practice it, but don't make it punishable by law for me to not follow the morals in your religious text.
Its funny how native keeps bringing up pornography when studies a couple years back showed that the Red states were the largest consumers of iron, with Utah leading the pack.
I am not going to waste my time now seeing if these numbers still hold true, but the reality of it all is that christians like native or Santorum want these laws enacted because the flock is weak and the ministers are ineffective in their message. That or they don't want to look like the only fools following the message so they will force it on everyone.
If all of the so called christians, who we are told are the majority in this country, just followed their bible, then there would be no need to pass laws to enforce their beliefs.
Your god supposedly gave man free choice, so why do you constantly want to take that away?
Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others.
Buddha
Native, I don't understand why you continue to use Christian scare tactics. You should know by now, they just don't work anymore, at least not with educated, secure people.
Midwestgirl, that was a good one.... Here is one a priest actually told us a long time ago.
A Centurion sez, " I don't care who you are, drop that cross one more time and you are out of the parade."
That priest happened to be one of my favorite people and ended up being the guy that fired me as an Alter Boy. (He caught a couple of us drinking the wine behind the Alter.) We all still got along till he left the Parish.
It's funny because the countries with a majority atheist population are doing relatively well off and are happier than Americans. I don't think it's because they're atheist, but it definitely puts a hole in the theory that if we lose our religion in society it all just comes crumbling to pieces.
Log In to post comments.
